canon rumors FORUM

As far as all of my use with the Sig 35 is concerned it is the most consistently focusing lens that didn't need any AFMA for. My Canon 50mm 1.4 fails consistently though, I can never get it well adjusted as it behaves differently at varying distances, and the whole part about it not being sharp and all the CA and PF. Meanwhile, just last week I dropped my Sig 35 onto concrete, and I'll have to send it in (hopefully warranty will cover), but it still works perfectly!! Just really tight getting it on and off the camera. I'm impressed with Sigma and will be looking forward to their future releases.

But if there's an offer out there for a 35L around $900 then shoot, take it, you'll be guaranteed to get close to that much back in the future too

Hobby Shooter

I love my 35L and use it for many different purposes. I know 35mm is not the optimal focal length for portraits but correctly used I get some really nice results out of it. I used this picture in my first exhibit a week ago, amongst other of the same model. It's not perfect as you can see the distortion making her ear and right eye smaller. Obivously not the fastest auto focus but I don't use it for sports anyway, it's normally fast enough to catch my kids though. Sharpness is a matter of taste also.

If you can handle manual focus the Zeiss 50 f2 MP is pretty dead sharp wide open. And if you can handle manual focus and have ~$3500 laying around, they're coming out with a 55 1.4 that so far looks to be knock-your-socks-off good wide open.

There is also the Sigma 50 1.4, which I found to be really good at 1.4. AF issues are horrendous, but if you're only using it under certain circumstances you may be able to micro adjust it to fit that circumstance and deal with the other shortcomings.

Sigma AF is what crossed the 35 1.4 off my list. I know full well that a lot of people have awesome copies, but a lot of people don't. My experience with them is not so great.

Never tried the Sigma 35 but I had enough headaches with other Sigma lenses.

The 35L is the most consistently focusing lens I own or tried, and this includes 20+ lenses, at least half of them L (most of them and in the "tried" category).

Some people, me included, have concerns about the bokeh of the Sigma vs. the Canon. The 35L can often render harsh background as well. It would be interesting to hear your opinion after you get the 35L.

I'm curious about your statement about the 35L rendering. I've been using my 35L for about 6 years now and it's always been creamy and very nice when shot wide open. Sure it needs critical focussing and it's AF isn't that great in really low light. But the rendering is really something special. I use mine alongside an 85L for weddings and they are easily my most used lenses. The two lenses have a certain look which compliment each other.

I've said everything I'm going to say about the problems I've had with Sigma over the years in other threads. The 35L is a very old (but still capable) lens. But it's nearing the time where a mkII is needed. Better coatings, weather sealing, new AF design and slightly better optics come to mind. Will the mkII cause me to rush out and upgrade my mkI? Probably not right away. Will the mkII make better sellable pictures? Probably not. Will I get a Siggi over the 35L....certainly not

Never tried the Sigma 35 but I had enough headaches with other Sigma lenses.

The 35L is the most consistently focusing lens I own or tried, and this includes 20+ lenses, at least half of them L (most of them and in the "tried" category).

Some people, me included, have concerns about the bokeh of the Sigma vs. the Canon. The 35L can often render harsh background as well. It would be interesting to hear your opinion after you get the 35L.

I'm curious about your statement about the 35L rendering. I've been using my 35L for about 6 years now and it's always been creamy and very nice when shot wide open. Sure it needs critical focussing and it's AF isn't that great in really low light. But the rendering is really something special. I use mine alongside an 85L for weddings and they are easily my most used lenses. The two lenses have a certain look which compliment each other.

I've said everything I'm going to say about the problems I've had with Sigma over the years in other threads. The 35L is a very old (but still capable) lens. But it's nearing the time where a mkII is needed. Better coatings, weather sealing, new AF design and slightly better optics come to mind. Will the mkII cause me to rush out and upgrade my mkI? Probably not right away. Will the mkII make better sellable pictures? Probably not. Will I get a Siggi over the 35L....certainly not

I'm a hardcore Canon L fan... Have 20 L lenses, never wanted to buy anything else, but let me tell you this Sigma one is something has totally surprised me.

Have you seen the lens image quality tool comparison with the Canon one at the-digital-picture.com ?

Wide open the Sigma is much better than the Canon not only on the corners but the center too. And the Canon have quite some fringe... Even down two 2.8 you can see a nice rainbow on the thin lines on the Canon and very minimal on the Sigma

Doesn't the USB thingy solve that issue? I think any lens that has a wide aperture will have some focus issues. Will it ever hit the target with 100% accuracy every time? Prob not. The AF point itself prob covers more than the area of focus. Isn't that what full time manual is for? For subjects that are at mfd I'd just use live view.

Doesn't the USB thingy solve that issue? I think any lens that has a wide aperture will have some focus issues. Will it ever hit the target with 100% accuracy every time? Prob not. The AF point itself prob covers more than the area of focus. Isn't that what full time manual is for? For subjects that are at mfd I'd just use live view.

The Sigma USB thing is interesting if your camera does not have a way to adjust it... But I imagine must be cumbersome to use since you have to test, take out of camera, adjust, reflash the firmware, put on camera, test... Repeat several times until you nail it....

Reading this I begin to wonder, are lenses (such as this) and cameras (such as the D800) becoming such that to use them properly and get the best out of them they require technique and skill that is just that extra step beyond what an ordinary photographer/user has?

Reading this I begin to wonder, are lenses (such as this) and cameras (such as the D800) becoming such that to use them properly and get the best out of them they require technique and skill that is just that extra step beyond what an ordinary photographer/user has?

I think that has being the case, always... Or anyone would be a star photographer.. Anyone can press the shutter, does not mean is a skilled photographer.

You did not just say the 50L is anywhere near the Sigma. The 50L, though performing perfectly from f/2 upwards, is one of the worst lenses price/performance-wise, it's just really, really soft from below 2.0, even the old 50 1.4 performs better in that range. And this is not just based on test charts, I owned it myself for quite some weeks before I switched to the razor sharp Sigma 35 1.4. There is quite a quality scatter but not even close as worse as it was with their old 50 1.4 and if you get a decent copy - like i did - it's just a treat to work with. Give it some time, get to your local lens dealer, and pick a lens by hand. You won't regret.

Most owners of 50L would known 50L is NOT one of the Canon sharpnest in L primes. It's more about the bokeh, color, and contrast that 50L will bring. When there is almost no light, my 50L shines @ f1.2. And if I want nice sharp images @ f2.8 or smaller, my 24-70 II or 70-200 f2.8 IS II will take that

I agree with you on the new Sigma, but my reply wasn't @ OP. I was replied to jdramirez

Never tried the Sigma 35 but I had enough headaches with other Sigma lenses.

The 35L is the most consistently focusing lens I own or tried, and this includes 20+ lenses, at least half of them L (most of them and in the "tried" category).

Some people, me included, have concerns about the bokeh of the Sigma vs. the Canon. The 35L can often render harsh background as well. It would be interesting to hear your opinion after you get the 35L.

I'm curious about your statement about the 35L rendering. I've been using my 35L for about 6 years now and it's always been creamy and very nice when shot wide open. Sure it needs critical focussing and it's AF isn't that great in really low light. But the rendering is really something special. I use mine alongside an 85L for weddings and they are easily my most used lenses. The two lenses have a certain look which compliment each other.

I've said everything I'm going to say about the problems I've had with Sigma over the years in other threads. The 35L is a very old (but still capable) lens. But it's nearing the time where a mkII is needed. Better coatings, weather sealing, new AF design and slightly better optics come to mind. Will the mkII cause me to rush out and upgrade my mkI? Probably not right away. Will the mkII make better sellable pictures? Probably not. Will I get a Siggi over the 35L....certainly not

I'm a hardcore Canon L fan... Have 20 L lenses, never wanted to buy anything else, but let me tell you this Sigma one is something has totally surprised me.

Have you seen the lens image quality tool comparison with the Canon one at the-digital-picture.com ?

Wide open the Sigma is much better than the Canon not only on the corners but the center too. And the Canon have quite some fringe... Even down two 2.8 you can see a nice rainbow on the thin lines on the Canon and very minimal on the Sigma

There has to be a point where a lens performance is rated a good enough, more than adequate...a great professional tool. This is where I see the 35L. I seriously doubt that my customers will see any real world difference in the sharpness but a heck of a lot of difference in the colour balance and rendering. I stick to one lens brand so that my pictures carry the same colour balance too. I don't see how any hand held shot using a 35L or a Siggi 35 f1.4 is going to make a lot of difference. Sure....pop it on a tripod and shoot a lens chart....we all make sell loads of pictures doing that